Abstract
Cultured meat can be produced from growing animal cells in-vitro rather than as part of a living animal. This technology has the potential to address several of the major ethical, environmental, and public health concerns associated with conventional meat production. However, research has highlighted some consumer uncertainty regarding the concept. Although several studies have examined the media coverage of this new food technology, research linking different frames to differences in consumer attitudes is lacking. In an experimental study, we expose U.S. adults (n = 480) to one of three different frames on cultured meat: “societal benefits,” “high tech,” and “same meat.” We demonstrate that those who encounter cultured meat through the “high tech” frame have significantly more negative attitudes toward the concept, and are significantly less likely to consume it. Worryingly, this has been a very dominant frame in early media coverage of cultured meat. Whilst this is arguably inevitable, since its technologically advanced nature is what makes it newsworthy, we argue that this high tech framing may be causing consumers to develop more negative attitudes toward cultured meat than they otherwise might. Implications for producers and researchers are discussed.
Highlights
FramingThe ways in which humans strive to make sense of the world they inhabit has long been of interest to scholars in a variety of fields
Our findings are comparable to those observed in previous U.S studies: we found that 64.6% of participants were probably or definitely willing to try cultured meat, which is very similar to the rates observed in previous research [69, 70]
Behavioral Intentions we tested for significant differences between framings in behavioral intentions using a one-way ANOVA
Summary
The ways in which humans strive to make sense of the world they inhabit has long been of interest to scholars in a variety of fields. Frames have been investigated in terms of their role in media coverage, news media [10, 11], political communication [12, 13] and advertising [14] One important distinction these scholars have sought to maintain is between the framing activities of those presenting information and those receiving it [15]. While interesting work has been done on the types of frames created by those presenting information [16,17,18], some of the most generative areas of research have been in terms of framing effects. The Good Food Institute [59, 60] has given substantial attention to the question of what cultured meat should be called, demonstrating that consumers are significantly more likely to find “clean meat” appealing than other names including “cultured meat” and “cell-based meat.”. The present study seeks to understand how different frames affect consumer attitudes, beliefs, and behavioral intentions toward cultured meat
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Free) 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call
